| Title |
Food environments and dietary intakes among adults: does the type of spatial exposure measurement matter? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Health Geographics, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12942-018-0139-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexia Bivoltsis, Eleanor Cervigni, Gina Trapp, Matthew Knuiman, Paula Hooper, Gina Leslie Ambrosini |
| Abstract |
The relationships between food environments and dietary intake have been assessed via a range of methodologically diverse measures of spatial exposure to food outlets, resulting in a largely inconclusive body of evidence, limiting informed policy intervention. This systematic review aims to evaluate the influence of methodological choice on study outcomes by examining the within-study effect of availability (e.g., counts) versus accessibility (e.g., proximity) spatial exposure measures on associations with diet. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018085250). PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases were searched for empirical studies from 1980 to 2017, in the English language, involving adults and reporting on the statistical association between a dietary outcome and spatial exposure measures of both availability and accessibility. Studies were appraised using an eight-point quality criteria with a narrative synthesis of results. A total of 205 associations and 44 relationships (i.e., multiple measures of spatial exposure relating to a particular food outlet type and dietary outcome) were extracted from 14 eligible articles. Comparative measures were dominated by counts (availability) and proximity (accessibility). Few studies compared more complex measures and all counts were derived from place-based measures of exposure. Sixteen of the 44 relationships had a significant effect involving an availability measure whilst only 8 had a significant effect from an accessibility measure. The largest effect sizes in relationships were mostly for availability measures. After stratification by scale, availability measure had the greatest effect size in 139 of the 176 pairwise comparisons. Of the 33% (68/205) of associations that reached significance, 53/68 (78%) were from availability measures. There was no relationship between study quality and reported study outcomes. The limited evidence suggests that availability measures may produce significant and greater effect sizes than accessibility measures. However, both availability and accessibility measures may be important concepts of spatial exposure depending on the food outlet type and dietary outcome examined. More studies reporting on multi-method effects are required to differentiate findings by the type of spatial exposure assessment and build an evidence base regarding the appropriateness and robustness of measures under different circumstances. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 4 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 175 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Researcher | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 15% |
| Unknown | 51 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 20 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 13 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 67 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,041,766
of 24,716,872 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#128
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,713
of 334,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,716,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.